Considerations in Implementing an Academic Program Review Process

Prepared for Mr. Clayton Christian, Montana Commissioner of Higher Education

by
James M. Limbaugh, Ph. D.
January, 2015
Purpose
Two constituent members of the Montana University SystemMontana State University-Northern and Montana State
University-Billingshave completed or are in the process of completing an academic program prioritization review. The
implementation of such an initiative at the local campus level supports three goals outlined in the Success Agenda of the
Montana University System Strategic Plan: Goal #1, Institutional Role Differentiation (specifically, Define distinct roles for the
primary components of the MUS); Goal #6, Program and Service Alignment (specifically, Focus programming to eliminate
unnecessary/undesired duplication of programs by identifying institutional niches); and Item #7,Performance-Based Funding
(specifically, Align targeted outcomes with institutional type through purposeful allocation of resources based on programming
type).
Therefore, this white paper has been crafted to provide insight and guidance to other MUS institutions who may be
considering an academic program prioritization review as a component of their own strategic planning processes and in
alignment with the System plan. To maintain focus, however, this report will not address a sub-trend in the movement in the
application of the prioritization principles to non-academic programs.
Summary
A brief background on the concept of academic program prioritization is provided, followed by a short overview of
arguments both for and against the process. The remainder of the report outlines a roster of implementation suggestions based
on the experience of executing an academic program prioritization review at Montana State University-Northern, a regional
public comprehensive university enrolling approximately 1,300 students (fall 2013).
The Emergence of Academic Program Prioritization
The concept of academic program prioritization, defined by this author as the comprehensive analysis of an institutions
academic programs against a designated set of criteria in response to a widely divergent set of institution-specific reasons (e.g.,
to increase revenues, to reduce costs, to heighten competitiveness, to improve reputation, to manage mission creep, to respond
to external pressures or mandates), became part of the lexicon of higher education with the publication in 1999 of the first
edition of Robert C. Dickesons seminal work, Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve
Strategic Balance. In explaining his rationale for writing the book, Dr. Dickeson observed,
The need for tighter focus is critical in higher education. So is the need to restore public trust about costs. Indeed the
public policy debate is shifting markedly from questions about access to those of affordability. It has been my
experience that higher education leaders are quite willing to respond to national calls for controlling costs and to make
change happen to increase their credibility when convinced it is in the best interest of their institutions to do so. But
1

they lack the proper tools. It is one thing to call for reform; it is another to guide the way toward achieving it. This book
is designed to serve as that guide (2010, p. xvii).
As a result, the publication, revised and updated in 2010, has emerged as a handbook for institutions searching for
the necessary guidance to orchestrate and implement a review of academic programs. A cursory website search on the phrase
academic program prioritization reveals multiple pages of citations showing a pervasive embracing of the concept, with
examples of its application in some iteration in virtually every state and in every form of non-profit higher education, from
community and technical colleges to large research universities.
However, the advent of Dr. Dickesons theories did not occur in a vacuum. Calls for action by higher education leaders
in all quarters of the profession and observers beyond the borders of academe have both preceded and occurred
simultaneously with the publication of Dr. Dickesons guidelines. For example, over thirty years ago Keller (1983) warned about
the possible outcomes of not responding to an increasing volatile external environment: Presidents cant act and faculty wont
act. This, at the very time that higher education faces the most serious enrollment, financial, and public confidence crises of the
century, as well as radical changes in program demands, the use of technology, and client markets (p. 172). In 1996, this
theme recurred in the research of Leslie and Fretwell, who found through their interviews regarding institutional health and
viability with college leaders across the country that In all cases, institutional leaders felt that the legitimacy of their role and the
reliability of their market appeal were threatened. They sensed that the public was not as supportive as it had once been, and
that more questions were being asked about the merit and value of a college education, and that answering those questions
would require more substantive proof of effectiveness than most institutions could provide (p. 137).
Since the publication of the first edition of Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services in 1999, the concerns about
higher educations ability to respond to disruptive change has continued. For example, Lauer (2006), considering higher
education from the vantage point of a fund-raising and marketing professional, wrote about the swift and possibly fundamental
changes coming in one of the worlds most important industriescolleges, universities, and schools (p. 11) and noted that
There is a different attitude toward the role of governments, who should support education, the responsibilities of students and
parents, higher education as a competitive industry, and even the declining reputation of American institutions. Some would say
it is an industry at risk. At minimum, it is an industry about to changeand change dramatically worldwide (p. 11). In
Turnaround: Leading Stressed Colleges and Universities to Excellence (2009), Martins and Samel cited academic deficiencies
as a sign of institutional vulnerability, noting that the combined impact of the absence of new program development and the time
required to propose, evaluate, analyze, and vote on program changes decrease an institutions ability to maintain its relevancy
and, by extension, its competitiveness (p. 19). Newman, Couturier, and Scurry (2004), in discussing their concern about the
realities of the marketplace and a growing gap between the public purposes that need to be served by colleges and universities
and the reality of how higher education is functioning (p. 3), made the following observation:
Higher education has been accorded a special place in society, separate from and above the marketplace throng.
Today, however, the growing influence of the market in higher education means that the search for truth is rivaled by a
search for revenues. As the gap between higher educations rhetoric about its public purposes and the reality of its
current performance grows, the special place of higher educationa place supported by the public because of the
benefits it receives in returnis imperiled (p. 4).

The message, therefore, has been clear for the past three decades and can be stated in an overtly simplistic manner:
Higher education must change to meet the needs of an increasingly skeptical public. As a result, academic program
prioritization has been embraced by dozens of institutions as a tool by which to evaluate, refine, and update its core of academic
programs to become more relevant in an increasingly market-driven, competitive environment.
Pros and Cons of Academic Program Prioritization
Dickeson (2010) has maintained that a comprehensive, analytical approach to the evaluation of academic programs is
necessary to address the academic bloat that affects overall program quality:
Colleges and universities have evolved to the point where the bloated curriculum is receiving inadequate resources to
accomplish its purposes. . . Most academic programs are seriously undernourished. Keeping up with qualified faculty
and adequate support staff is difficult. It is nearly impossible to provide equipment necessary to mount the program in
a respectable way, particularly in an age of rapid technological transformation. Conducting programs in facilities that
are in their worst shape in American history is ludicrous. The price for academic program bloat for all is
impoverishment of each (p. 23).
Other observers, both in and out of the academy, support academic program prioritization for such reasons as fiscal
responsibility and the development of a rich, multidimensional dataset to assist in decision-making. Other rationales for the
implementation of academic program prioritization are reflected in various campus- or mission-specific reasons, illustrated by
the unfolding of the process at colleges and universities as diverse as Western Carolina University, Indiana State University,
Lehman College, the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and the Maricopa Community Colleges. The concept has even
migrated across the border into Canadian institutions, appearing, for example, on the agendas of the the University of
Saskatchewan and the University of Guelph.
Detractors of the academic program prioritization process maintain that it constitutes a thinly-veiled effort to eliminate
tenure or that the complicated nature of the process brings with it inordinate costs in terms of personnel and time. Other
observers note that the real culprit behind higher educations woes is administrative growth at the expense of academic
programs and that an administrative priority process should first be implemented to shave away non-academic costs before
academic programs are affected. Also voiced is the concern that academic programs will be diminished and marginalized as a
result of academic program prioritization.
Implementing the Academic Program Prioritization Process
Successful implementation of Dickesons principles is dependent on a broad and diverse set of campus-centric
variables, ranging from commitment of leadership to clarity of purpose to availability of data to faculty resistance (or support).
Also adding to the mix is the campus atmosphere in which the review will be performed. That being said, the comments
provided in the remainder of this report are reflective exclusively of the experiences of implementation at a small regional
university and should not be construed as an infallible set of instructions. Additionally, they should not be interpreted as a linear
set of guidelines, for every institution will differ in the place that they are and the resources they currently possess when they
consider implementation an academic program prioritization exercise.

However, front-line experiences of others can often inform, in a positive fashion, the process when implemented at
another institution. Therefore, the suggestions that followoffered from the perspective of chief executive officerare shared in
the spirit of professionalism and collegiality, because at our core we are all educators and we want to provide the best possible
educational experience for our students.
1) Before beginning the process
a) Have a full understanding, as the president or chief academic officer, for the reasons to consider an academic program
prioritization process (henceforth identified in this report as APPR). Read Dickesons book closely, as well as other
articles and critiques, in order to understand clearly the opportunities and obstacles that could present themselves
during the implementation of these guidelines at the local level.
b) Consider how other schools have fared in the process. Review the information readily available on their websites.
Because numerous institutions have engaged in the APPR across the country, do not feel compelled to re-invent the
wheel.
c) Understand the detracting arguments, some of which are cited in a preceding paragraph. Be prepared in particular for
the argument that APPR has, as its core, the mission of turning colleges into to glorified job-training centers operating
at the whim of a fickle public while abdicating its responsibility to prepare a fully-educated individual capable of
assuming a leadership role in a volatile society.
d) If the chief academic officer is the primary advocate of implementing the APPR, confirm that the support of the
president is clear and unwavering, and that he/she is able to articulate the value of the process within the context of
his/her goals for the university.
e) Pay particular attention to the issues, questions, and concerns of academic leadership (e.g., deans) as the APPR is
f)

considered, for they will ultimately be doing much of the heavy lifting as the process unfolds.
All non-academic leadership must understand fully the rationale for implementing an APPR as well, for the outcomes

could very well affect them and they need to be fully cognizant of the process and its rationale.
g) Meet with the faculty thought leaders immediately to answer their questions and gain their support.
h) If the institution has faculty union, it is vital to have a full understanding of the parameters of the agreement vis a vis the
scope of the APPR in order to diminish the risk of having a grievance filed that could conceivably derail the entire
project. It is also extremely important to reach out to union leadership immediately and to maintain full communication
i)

with them throughout the process.

If APPR is being advocated as a cost-cutting or savings measure, know that the rationale will be questioned, proof of
this premise will be requested, scenarios showing possible outcomes will be demanded, a grievance (or multiple
grievances) may be filed, or a request to perform a forensic audit may surface. As a result, a vital first step is ensuring
a full understanding of the costs of each program and that a legitimate cost of education model exists as part of a
budget review or evaluation process. If the institution does not have such a model in place, and if there is the luxury of
time (which may be moot, especially if there is pressure from internal or external constituencies to review programs
immediately for funding or market purposes), it is strongly recommended that this cost model be developed first to
serve as a resource and platform in support of prioritization efforts. Be sure that the methodology implemented is fully
understood by the faculty, for this will be invaluable in the dialogue about APPR outcomes within the context of broader
institutional financial challenges.
4

j)

In tandem with an infrastructure of cost modeling is the importance of the availability of data. While Dickesons book
provides excellent examples of measurement criteria, a thorough analysis must be completed regarding what data is
available through local institutional research functions, what databases can be created if necessary, and what simply
cannot be generated. Developing a set of criteria that cannot be applied consistently to all academic programs
undermines the effectiveness of the process and the validity of the outcomes/recommendations. At a minimum, data
sets on each academic offering should include the following:
(1) Student retention and graduation rates,
(2) Number of students in each program (majors, minors, and enrolled without seeking a degree) and number of
degrees conferred on an annual basis,
(3) Five year enrollment trends and the trends as compared to other institutions (if the latter can be reasonably

located),
(4) Cost of instruction (as discussed above),
(5) Allocated and generated faculty FTE,
(6) Trends in faculty load over multiple semesters,
(7) Percentage of semester hours/student load expended in support of general education,
(8) Student credit hours generated, and
(9) Percentage of courses taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty.
k) It is vital that important terms are fully defined in advance; e.g., what is meant if the announcement is made that the
APPR will allow decisions regarding growing, maintaining, reducing, or eliminating programs? Another volatile
statement that must have an answer in advance is shifting of resources, because members of the campus community
and beyond will automatically think that one program will be robbed to provide support for another.
2) Crafting a timeline
a) Is there a particular timeline that is necessary based on the institutions particular constraints? If not, the value of
retrospection reveals an optimum schedule of two years (although this recommendation is made with the full
knowledge that the cataclysmic change occurring in higher education may well render it irrelevant).
i) Year One will build the framework of cost analysis and data availability as necessary and as discussed above.
During this time, become conversant in other possible evaluative factors not related to cost or data, including
(1) External mandates;
(2) System priorities and/or plans;
(3) The importance of various intangibles, like alignment with the university mission, faculty research and

ii)

recognition, service to the general education core, and alumni achievements;

(4) Facilities and equipment issues;
(5) Retirements of faculty and the potential to evaluate the currency of programmatic emphases.
Concurrent with structuring the framework is building the partnerships with faculty leadership to generate support
for the concept. Hold discussions in multiple venues with faculty, armed with the rationale for doing the study and
providing updates on the generation of data. Faculty opinion will be invaluable in identifying possible criteria for
evaluation. Of particular importance at this stage is that the APPR is not construed as an out to get a particular

program exercise.
iii) Year Two will be the actual faculty-led evaluation, followed by review of the recommendations and the
announcement of decisions made as a result of the APPR, as discussed in more detail in the remainder of this
report.
b) It is also important to remember that external deadlines and processes will factor significantly into decisions related to
new program development or the phasing out of older programs. For example, if it is desired that a new program is to
5

begin in fall 2016, then the fundamental constructs of the programs curriculum and instruction need to be in placeas
well as Board approvals, a prerequisite to making any new program available for student enrollmentno later than
September 2015 in order to maximize the admission offices recruiting cycles.
3) Setting up the committee
a) Draw heavily on faculty input from established leadership entities (e.g., union, faculty senate) to establish an open and
transparent process of selection.
b) Consider having at least two student members.
c) Decide on the chairperson. Campus climate will inform the choice, be it be the provost, a particular dean, or an
outstanding faculty member that has the respect of the campusalthough the latter could shy away from the job if that
individual believes that involvement with the process would appear that he/she is abdicating the role of faculty to serve
as a quasi-administrator.
d) Be sure to have a dedicated support staff person to act as secretary/assistant to keep the workflow going.
e) Provide a level of financial support necessary for such expenditures as off-campus retreats or, if appropriate, visits to
f)

other campuses.
Faculty must take the lead, and they must be fully invested in the process. If it weighs too heavily as an administrative
mandate, then the process will be slowed downlike an intentional work stoppageand the desired impact will be
completely negated.
i) Depending on the campus culture and capabilities and committee size, then course reduction may be a
consideration for committee members. This makes an important statement to the faculty about the importance of

the work being done.

4) Establishing ongoing communication
a) It is vitally important to have a consistent message about the rationale for the APPR. Develop in partnership with the
committee a set of talking points, emphasizing the connection to the mission, the value to students, the influence of
external mandates, enrollment challengeswhatever are the overriding factors affecting the institution. Otherwise, the
message about purpose is diluted and can cause questions about legitimacy and relevancy.
b) Be sure that the president has this same set of talking points, especially since he/she will be speaking to a broader set
of constituencies (e.g., elected leaders, community members).
c) Have a calendar with deadlines established beforehand, for projects such as these can take widely divergent paths
unless some sort of clear expectation for delivery of product is announced and maintained.
d) One of the most important communication tools is the establishment of a dedicated website with ample opportunity for
community input coupled with ensuring that the site remains current. Provide on the website an opportunity for
questions; perhaps have a blog with regular updates written by members of the committee, the provost, the deans, etc.
Include a frequently asked questions section.
e) Constant discussion in existing or new communication modes must be a priority (e.g., weekly newsletters, Twitter, inhouse publications). It is also important to establish communication links with other groups invested in the institution;
e.g., alumni, Board members, and other presidents in the system who may be considering taking on such a project.
f) Be sure to maintain regular attendance at student government meetings to keep them apprised of progress.
g) Keep a schedule of regular meetings with news media, including student publications, to keep them fully informed of
both sides of the story when the inevitable complaints and letters to the editor begin.
h) Host multiple open forums during the process to allow questions and to make adjustments to the process if it appears
to be warranted.
6

i)

Include as many factions of the institution as possible in the discussion about all aspects of the APPR (e.g., student
services, finance, development, student government) because they will have a vested interest in both the process and

j)

its eventual outcomes.

Keep the Commissioners staff and other supervisory personnel apprised of progress in case complaints from campus

surface at their offices.

5) Developing the criteria
a) Consider a retreat, away from campus, to orient the committee to its work.
b) Draw on available resources like Dickesons book and the approaches taken by other institutions.
c) Provide adequate material in advance for the committee to review. For example, the institutional research function
should provide prior to deliberation an overview of what consistently-available data exists for each program, while cost
of instruction details should be also made available. This information will be invaluable in establishing consistency of
criteria and its application, especially if the committee wishes to expand its data sets.
d) As discussed previously, be sure the criteria selected can actually be quantified/measured/verified. Trying to create the
data on the fly will not work and could be considered disrespectful of the academic programs under review.
e) Have multiple open meetings to discuss criteria all along the way and to gain input from faculty.
f) Be prepared to spend an ample amount of time on the discussions about criteria, because the different disciplines will
have significantly divergent ideas about appropriate measurements. Different outcomes assessments are acceptable
for liberal arts programs vs. trades/workforce offerings, for example, but certain measurements, as outlined previously,
need to be consistently applied to all programs.
g) The criteria selected should be able to be clearly understood by an external evaluator, if necessary, to show a clear
alignment with the mission statement, learning goals, etc., and/or that it is clearly connected to a strategic planning
priority. This is especially true for institutional accreditation.
h) Include as a criterion the requirement that each program list its primary competitors, both in-state and nationally, if
i)

necessary.
If there are Board or System policies regarding new programs or discontinuation, the campus and the committee must
understand this from the beginning. For example, closing a program still must allow a teach out period to allow

j)

students pursuing a major in that program to complete it in a timely manner.

Know in advance what it might mean if closing a program means the loss of faculty positions. What are union
limitations? If budget cutting is one of the priorities of this process, then be clear about what would happen to faculty

affected by the process. The same concern applies to students enrolled in the programs being affected.
k) Decide in advance if the process will allow for the proposal of completely new programs. If so, establish the minimum
expectations of information to be provided to allow for further consideration after the APPR has concluded. The same
concept should be applied to recommendations for merging of programs or establishing of interdisciplinary linkages.
6) Reviewing each program
a) Make sure all parties understand the cycle of review that leads to receipt of recommendations and ultimately to a
decision; e.g., faculty to department chair to dean to provost with ultimate decision by the president and/or to the Board
of Regents or the System office as necessary.
b) Establish a clear expectation of the format and content of the final report in terms of consistency in presentation on
each program. The report can lose credibility if it appears that some programs are evaluated more stringently than
others or that its content and tone are not reflective of the amount of effort undertaken by the committee and the faculty
at large.
7

7) Preparing and distributing the final report/decision

a) Decide in advance who will write the final report of the committee.
b) The final report should be as detailed and as transparent as possible to show the amount of thought and consideration
put into the process.
c) The draft should be made available for review and comment by the faculty for a designated amount of time before its
final iteration and before any decisions are made.
d) Explain how implementation will occur, and place the timeline within the context of existing System or Board policies
regarding new program submittals or phasing out of existing programs.
e) Provide a copy of the report to the Commissioner of Higher Education and to members of the Board as necessary and
f)

as requested.
If the APPR has been established to address budgetary issues, provide scenarios illustrating cost reductions, savings,
and potential shifting of resources. Be sure that the logic used is clear, for the facultyespecially those potentially

affectedwill review it closely for any discrepancies or inconsistencies.

g) Have a public relations plan and communications flow chart worked out in advance to ensure that information about the
results of the APPR is adequately and thoroughly explained to the faculty, staff, students, and community.
h) In post-APPR discussions, continue the message of connecting the process back to the original talking points, to the
mission, and to the institutions strategic plan.
Is Academic Program Prioritization Right for Every Campus?
When Dickesons book was first published in 1999, Kazar (2000) noted the emergence of corporatization and
outsourcing as trends in higher education, observing that
Attempting to balance the competing academic and corporate values is also related to the theme of determining
priorities. The growing and competing sets of values (and accompanying initiatives) impacting the academy make it
necessary to establish priorities. The corporate values and drive toward commercialization are exacerbated by
legislatures that demand universities be more strongly involved with transforming schools, community problems, and
workforce development. One helpful book offers a conceptual framework and a set of processes for clarifying
institutional purpose and setting academic priorities. It builds on the authors experience as a university president, and
engages the academic community in choosing among competing demands for financial and physical resources
(Dickeson, R. C.). This type of leadership will become increasingly important as institutions have become stretched
beyond their means. Research to support better decision-making within an environment of competing demands is
needed (p. 3)
Fifteen years later, Kazars concerns still ring true. State-supported campuses like those in the Montana University System are
being expected to respond to a wide variety of educational, cultural, and economic demands while concurrently dealing with the
impact of external mandates and shifting support from state legislatures. As a result, Dickesons theories have percolated to the
top of higher educations collective consciousness as a possible framework to aid in the management of manage diminishing
resources and competing demands.
However, is academic program prioritization the right answer for every campus? Such a projection is well beyond the
scope of this report, for the decision to implement an exhaustive analysis lies at the intersection of each campuss mission, its
competition, overarching financial concerns, and its future viability as a college or university in a volatile and rapidly-changing
environment. Ultimately, the success or failure of such an endeavor will be driven by the presence or absence of the will of a

community of educators to realistically analyze institutional potential for continued success and relevancy in providing the best
possible education for its students.

References
Dickeson, R. C. (2010). Prioritizing academic programs and services: reallocating resources to achieve strategic balance. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kazar, A. (2000). Administration: ERIC trends, 1999-2000. Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lauer, L. (2006). Advancing higher education in uncertain times. Washington, D.C.: Council for Advancement and Support of
Education.
Leslie, D. and Fretwell, E. (1996). Wise moves in hard times: creating and managing resilient colleges and universities. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Martin, J., and Samels, J. Turnaround: leading stressed colleges and universities to excellence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Newman, F., Couturier, L, and Scurry, J. (2004). The future of higher education: rhetoric, reality, and the risks of the market.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Electronic citations are available through direct links in the report.

10